In People v. Superior Court (Credit One Bank, N.A.), published July 3, 2025, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 2, granted the People's petition for a writ reversing the trial court's ruling on a motion for protective order. The district attorneys of four counties brought a civil enforcement action against the real party credit card company. The company noticed the deposition of the People's Person Most Qualified under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.010. The People objected that they could not be required to designate a PMQ, because they were not a person or entity subject to deposition. They further argued that the deposition would be tantamount to deposing opposing counsel, and that limitations on such depositions set forth in case law applied. The trial court ruled that the People must designate a PMQ, but limited the topics of deposition and the defendant's document requests.
The appellate court agreed with the trial court that a public agency could be required to designate a PMQ; and that the People, as a group of public agencies, were required to designate one. The appellate court also ruled, however, that such a deposition in a civil enforcement action was tantamount to deposing opposing counsel, whether the PMQ designated is an attorney or an investigator. The trial court therefore erred in failing to apply the requirements for seeking to depose opposing counsel, including the showing of "extremely good cause" for the deposition. The appellate court granted writ relief and remanded the matter to the trial court to apply those standards.
Leave a Reply